The 2 Minute Hate: How the Liberal Left Uses Old Tactics to Demonize Conservatives, From 1964 “Daisy” Commercial to 2012 SWATting Erick Erickson. Hit back, watch For Greater Glory this Friday.

(3rd in A Fortnight for Freedom Series, For Greater Glory PLEDGE.) In the “two minute hate” depicted in George Orwell’s book 1984 (required for high school students in my day), the party members’ daily ritual included the watching of a 2 minute video designed to whip up personal hatred for the enemies of the party.

Some of those watching would actually get so whipped up by hatred as they watched that they would physically assault the screen to vent their hatred (see excerpt HERE).

In 1964 the most infamous and notorious example produced by a student of that 2 minute hate was shown with conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as the target (see Goldwater “Daisy” commercial of 1964).

If you’ve not read Erick Erickson’s piece about how he has been attacked with the latest hate-tool of the radical left – SWATting – I urge you most strongly to do so, and to also circulate it.

This ought not to be a topic of interest only to movement oriented conservatives but for any fair minded American interested in seeing issues debated during election campaigns.

RedState Chief Erickson has recognized that his being the object of one of these “two minute hate” campaigns – in this instance a SWATting attack by the left – is actually a badge of honor to mark his success fighting the left.

So called “SWATting” as Erick explains, is when the local police get a phone call pretending to be you, where you admit to having just shot and killed your wife. Then police or sheriff’s deputies show up – or a SWAT Team (Special Weapons & Tactics) at your house with guns drawn as if they are there to combat a crazed wife killer – you.

Yes, they are “locked and loaded” and ready to shoot. You.

Gee what great fun the lefties have, no?

This is just one of the many versions of such attacks on conservatives such as “google-bombing and other attempts to smear and demonize conservatives and (they hope) ruin their lives, get them fired, destroyed, etc.

There is another RED STATE report about who has perpetrated such evil, which I highly recommend to you HERE.

If you complain in any way about such treatment – such as is described in these two recommended articles – you are either ignored by the “mainstream” media or else they say that you are just whining and you are a complainer.

Watch for an increase in personal attacks on conservatives as part of the “campaign” to reelect President Barack Obama and help his allies keep control of the U.S. Senate and House and continue their quest to “transform” America.

The secular liberal-left cannot debate conservative value voters on issues because they usually lose in any contest which is even remotely fair and even.

And so what do they do?

They always attempt to make it personal, to find some mistake or supposed gaffe or flaw in the conservative candidate, and focus on that instead of speaking about issues where they differ with us and where they will be required to explain their future plans to voters.

They attempt to focus attention away from the issues where they usually lose, and on to any mistakes or character flaws of their target.

If Rush Limbaugh used a bad word to describe Sandra Fluke – a woman attending an expensive law school who needs the taxpayer to pay for her daily sex habit – then you can use “the two minute hate” on Rush Limbaugh. They did.

It matters not that he apologized. Those who had taken their “two minute hate” dose just kept going on and on.

The root problem with this approach that many people overlook can be found in the words of one of the 10 Commandments: “Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.”

But my citing that will of course, enrage such denizens of the left who watch carefully on these pages for any “error” they can attack.

Imagine.

The very idea that law, or our actions, should be governed by such a quaint old idea as “moral right and wrong.”

The entire point of the article was to help explain why a Christian with an “informed” conscience is not the same thing as someone who uses their “conscience” as their guide.

You might have a malformed or uninformed conscience, for example.

You might abort your baby and tell me it is OK with your conscience, for example.

The simple word “conscience” can mask self-centered narcissistic behavior or the behavior of a Saint or of someone we might admire. It all depends on whether it is an “informed” or a “malformed” conscience.

I gave a number of examples in yesterday’s offering.

In one of those examples, the people chose Jesus and not Barabbas to crucify. I confused two anti-Rome rebels in what I typed – Spartacus instead of the correct name, Barabbas. Of course I know who Barabbas is, contrary to the personal attacks which followed.

But what happened is instructive – there are a few “Red State Watchers” whose apparent assignment (whether self assigned or otherwise) is to echo everything they read at Daily Kos, Media Matters, or from wherever they got their “daily dose” of the “2 minute hate” to attack conservative value voters who dare write here.

And of course if you say “I’m a conservative but” in front of your echo of the “2 minutes hate” then we are supposed to ignore the source of the attack?

Hint: Fruit. Tree.

Even after I corrected the mistake (the attack happened within minutes of my post – several “watchers” pounced) – done within minutes of the post – the attacks continued and continued.

If you check the “comment” section after yesterday’s article (and several others that I wrote before yesterday) you will see an example of the output generated from “the two minute hate.”

What is written to “critique” my article has nothing at all to do with what I wrote.

When I have defended myself from such personal attacks that are totally irrelevant to what I wrote, the usual tactic is to then complain that I am complaining.

It would be humorous except that the secular liberal left has no humor at all and a very thin skin.

So if a conservative defends himself he is wrong and if he does not he is wrong.

Get it? No matter what you say or write they will still launch personal attacks aiming to discredit YOU without ever touching your argument or rationale.

Please bear in mind that in Orwell’s 1984 it was the members of “the party” who watched “the two minute hate” and got suitably whipped up. It was not a “two minute hate” for the masses but for the “leaders,” ie. the “intelligentsia” or apparatchik.

Conservative “values voters” who have not read 1984 or who have not seen the hateful “Daisy” commercial or have not actually read any of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals are of course, very shocked when they read or hear of such attacks.

The vitriolic nature of such attacks is against their nature and often leaves them stunned and confused.

Often, they are distracted by the attack. Of course, that is the purpose.

The negative and personal, vitriolic attacks are used because they fire up the left, turn many “middle of the road” voters against us and even confuse many who are part of the conservative cause.

The only way to fight the “2 minutes hate” of the left is to expose their tactics so that it boomerangs on them and helps you promote our cause.

In my case, the most widely recommend articles I have written here at RED STATE are the ones which are attacked the most bitterly by people who sound as if they are fresh off of viewing/imbibing of “The 2 Minute Hate.” Perhaps they took 3 minutes in some cases.

The more the “hate attacks” have gone on and on (often very repetitive and usually very much ignoring what was actually written), the more people are attracted to reading my articles and then “recommending”.

In one such hate attack the haters assured me that they were very expert at measuring the analytics of RedState and that their 100+ comments – generated by about 4 people (including my defense/replies) – were more of a measurement of what a bad person I am and a terrible writer, than were the 110 people who “recommended” the article one way or another way (there are several ways you can do this here at RED STATE).

Sure. I should ignore 110 who “like” what I wrote and want me to continue, and instead listen to “advice” from haters who want me to stop, and who sound no different from those who write at Daily Kos, Media Matters and Huffington Post, and who here number about 4 “people” (assuming it is not one person with four accounts?). Right.

The “boomerang” effect is that their attacks draw more attention to what you said in the first place.

So lesson learned: stand your ground, defend your position and show how they are using hate and personal attacks to hide the truth – they have no answer to what we are writing and saying.

Counter their negative with some positive, is my suggestion to my conservative friends. When you see them doing that to someone whose offerings you appreciate jump in to say something positive or better still – help circulate articles like the two I mention above.

Check the “fruit on the tree” when you are offered information – and if they are using the tactics of the left then walk away, ignore them, defriend them on Facebook, protect yourself from such junk.

It is difficult for me to imagine someone watching the For Greater Glory movie starting this weekend (in select cities) who will not better understand what Barack Obama is doing when he attacks the Catholic Church with his “mandates” requiring them to provide that which their Church’s teachings forbid.

Rather than debate how the First Amendment requires that the federal government is constrained from doing what it is now doing they would of course, much prefer to simply demonize Catholic clerics who speak out against their being forced to violate their conscience and act contrary to their Church’s teachings.

You will see this clearly in the movie For Greater Glory (see the movie trailer, HERE).

The Cristeros – the Catholics whose battle cry became “Viva Cristo Rey” (Long Live Christ the King) countered the demonizing of their Church and their priests by resisting.

When the resistance became too much of an irritant to the secular government of Mexico, the government simply turned up “the two minute hate” and sent armed troops to arrest, jail, torture and kill the priests and those Catholics who defended them.

Skeptical?

You didn’t read, listen or watch “the two minute hate”?

Silly. I said it was just for “the party members.” You and I are not supposed to see it. It is for the secular liberal-left.

(disclaimer: for liberal-leftists who will take this literally. It is a metaphor. Like when you “haters” said you wanted to “kill Rick Santorum” but it was only “metaphorically speaking. See my May 10 offering HERE in which I rebutted your metaphorical killing of us Santorum supporters).

So how am I so sure that they watched before they attacked us?

Because The Book I read (never enough I must admit) says you can know the tree by checking the fruit.

Erick Erickson was attacked by the people who watched and were whipped up by “the two minute hate” and most likely even attended the “one week hate” that 1984 speaks of.

Oh don’t go and take me too literally now. I am already imagining the leaping to their keyboard (or whipping their thumbs into shape) to deny it all and say they don’t know who George Orwell is, or they missed yesterday’s 2 minute hate or whatever.

Calm down, the couple of you secular-liberal leftists or mimics who are reading this. It is a figure of speech here and most readers understand my point. Regardless of whether you are a leftist or you just sound exactly like one isn’t the point.

Some of my most pointed columns in defense of values voter issues in this RED STATE have also subjected me to personal attack and attempts to “demonize” me.

When they cannot find something to insult me over they often simply make something up, such as “you people say such and such.”

After raising that strawman argument they will then go on and on attacking the strawman of their own construction.

This week we saw another attempt to demonize Mitt Romney by using the “birther” issue (as the secular liberal-left calls it). It was fascinating to behold.

Long ago, before he became a Senator and a potential future U.S. President, someone wrote a promotion for Obama and quoted him as saying he was born in another country, and later raised as a Muslim in another country before finally making it to Hawaii.

That “promotional material” was recently discovered and reported.

Consequently, Donald Trump, who has spoken on this subject before, was asked about this, and simply suggested that this new information bears investigating.

Immediately from the White House we saw the result of the “2 minutes hate” come out.

In fact I was very amused to see the reasonably “fair and balanced” reporter Greta Van Susteren on Fox TV News questioning Trump about this last night.

Greta simply reiterated the liberal line that the entire line of questioning was absurd and did Donald Trump really believe that Barack Obama was born in another country?

Trump – and I’m no fan of his – simply kept pointing back to the original article and original words and asking, why is no one investigating what was actually said?

In fact, being an agnostic on the “was he born American” subject (ie. to the liberal-left that is, “birther”), I have paid close attention to what Trump has said. He is very careful never to be an advocate. He simply “raises the question” each time.

The only way that the left rebutts Trump on this subject is the use of ridicule and the “straw man” argument.

The entire “issue” in other words, according to the left, is about the “crazy birthers” and not about the book publisher who said that he published what Barack Obama said, ie. that he was not born in America and was not raised in America.

That’s “fair and balanced” reporting?

No. It is the result of some people who watched “the two minutes hate” and then vented at Donald Trump.

I have to credit Trump – he was not only NOT thrown off by the junk thrown at him – the personal attacks – but he asked Greta, isn’t it a serious question, if you are not allowed to be President if you are born in another country, and this credible source says that Barack Obama told him that he WAS in act, born in another country, why ask me?

Why not investigate and get at the facts, said Trump. While Greta kept acting like she was “just asking” she never did respond to what he said.

Naturally, this “issue” is used by the left as another opportunity to demonize conservatives as “birthers” who are all crazy and irrational, and Mitt Romney was even asked why he would associate with people who believe this like Donald Trump.

But I noticed that Donald Trump at no point said he believed or didn’t believe Barack Obama was American born. Does anyone care to focus on what he actually said? Nope.

That is how the two minute hate works.

The left gets themselves “whipped up” with their two minute hate. You and I won’t see what they are watching and reading. We will only see the outcome of their being whipped up.

But you can if you want – just go to Media Matters, Daily Kos, Huffington Post or other hate sites like them.

That is where the “2 minute hate” starts. And then look in the so-called “mainstream media” and yes even a “fair and balanced reporter” like Greta. And you will see the influence of those haters.

I don’t claim to know whether someone read/listened/watched the actual “2 minutes hate” or were they influenced by someone who did.

Daily Caller last year reported on how a number of reporters had a little online “club” where they shared ideas on how to demonize conservatives, providing many examples. They reported the actual emails of reporters who claim to be “fair and balanced” but who are actually leftwing activists plotting how to demonize conservatives, including how to lie about us.

I believe that Greta Susteren is not of their ranks but she certainly fell for their minsinformation and used their tactics on Donald Trump in yesterday’s segment, even to the point of referring to the “birthers” by that disparaging name used by the liberal-left. Hardly fair and balanced, Greta.

I’ve seen example after example of the hate tactics of the left over a period of many years and many good people who fell for it.

They actually fight it out among each other to see who can come up with the most “clever” and effective ways of demonizing conservatives, aiming to disrupt and destroy our cause.

The SWATting of Erick Erickson is but the latest example.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Knowing and sharing the truth, is the best way to counter the lies and hate tactics of the secular liberal-left.

Know and recognize the tree – the origin of the hate – by the fruit.

Remember as Saul Alinsky knew, Satan is the Father of Lies. The tactics of the 2 minute hate, are lies. The antidote to their poison, is the truth.

Of course the dark hates the light. Of course the light pushes back the dark. Be not afraid.

I give prayerful thanks that Erick Erickson and his family are safe after the potentially deadly SWATting attack on them. Like him, my reading about and even experiencing similar hate attacks after some of my articles here, only strengthens my resolve.

Friday, just two more days, and you can “register” your vote for truth by watching For Greater Glory to see what happens when the hatred turns to violence as it so often does.

For Greater Glory: a true story of what happens when the government attempted to forcibly “secularize” the country, as they did in Mexico in 1926. Starring Andy Garcia.

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. I maintain a 5x a week, weekdays writing schedule at RED STATE.

You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania. I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do (if this is reprinted on any other website, that is). And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.